Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

#77 Aug 18 2005 at 4:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And we call one another on it as well. Gbaji is the master at making up stuff and then proclaiming it to be fact and basing his entire argument off of his own fantasies. No reason to waste time chipping away at details when you can show the entire foundation to be a dream.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Aug 18 2005 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
******
20,674 posts
In this case however its more than likely if Gbaji admitted that he was wrong he just wouldnt be "wrong" he would probably be "guilty".
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#79 Aug 18 2005 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Yeah, the "My experience is my citation" argument doesn't hold up too well.

You can argue logic behind experiences, but not experiences as definitive proof.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#80 Aug 18 2005 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
What, you guys didn't know that gbaji is a crime scene investigator and forensic pathologist? I thoguht that much was obvious at least...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#81 Aug 18 2005 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Quote:
She was offered the choice of calling a cab, or having *** with someone.


Reading comp is your friend. You've got nothing, so now you are making up sh[/i]it. "Calling a cab" was never an option. She was out in the middle of nowhere in the example. Unless she had a cell phone (which, hard is it may be to believe, not everyone does) then she had no choice.

As for the first option being rare, I can think of at least three different cases I've heard of where variations on that theme came into play (in one case, it was a carjacker who told the woman if she didn't cooperate, he would kill her baby who was in the back seat. In another case, someone followed a woman into her home when she left the door open while bringing in groceries--try watching [i]America's Most Wanted
sometime.)

So no, it's NOT extremely rare. You are talking out your *** on a subject you know absolutely nothing about, trying to justify letting bona fide rapists go scot-free. Just stop. You're completely full of sh[b][/b]it and everyone here sees that except for you (and Virus, and, I mean really, the fact that Virus is the only one backing you up should tell you something about the supportability of your claim.)

The "vast majority" of rapes are NOT violent assaults. If you spent even a week working a rape crisis line you would know that.

Quote:
Exactly how many people do you know of who've been raped, where they actually had *no* choice about it (ie: not your bogus second example), and they weren't beaten or bruised or hurt in any other way?


Well, let's see...

My mother lost her virginity at 14 to a guy who threatened her with a pocket knife if she didn't put out. Her "choice" was submitting to ***, or getting stabbed. Are you going to say she wasn't raped because she was given a "choice"?

I was the first one on the scene, the one who called the cops, when my sister's husband got drunk at a wedding reception and pinned her down on the bed and forced himself inside her. She never had any bruises either. As I said, some women don't bruise easily even when there is physical force.

I really have to wonder about the mental stability of someone who is bending over backwards to justify rape. You seem to be about the percentages, well the percentage of girls who abuse existing rape laws to make false allegations is miniscule compared to the number of actual rapists who would go free if bruises and signs of physical struggle were our criteria for determining if someone was actually raped.



Edited, Thu Aug 18 17:58:30 2005 by Ambrya
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're ***, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky *** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#82 Aug 18 2005 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

Quote:

In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

<snip>

Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)

<snip other stuff>

According to the U.S. Department of Justice: (All statistics are taken from: Violenceagainst Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)

One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage.

31% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.

68% of rapes occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

At least 45% of rapists were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In 29% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.

In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.

75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.


So, if 29% of rape is "acquaintance rape" that means that according to Gbaji's logic, over 100,000 women just "made a bad choice."

53% of women who are raped have no other injuries (i.e. bruises, or that all-important "sign of a struggle") that means that 187,975 women would not be able to "prove" rape. Nearly 200,000 rapists would walk free if Gbaji had his way.

Getting an accurate number of how many rape allegations are deemed false is difficult, because there's propagandizing both on the part of ultrafeminists and the radical anti-feminist movement. According to an article about those wildly diverging statistics concerning how many rape allegations are actually false in the Columbia Journalism Review we get this statistic from the FBI:

Quote:
the FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available) ... The agency's guidelines define a report as false when an investigation determines that no offense occurred. A complainant's failure or refusal to cooperate in the investigation does not, by itself, lead to a finding of false report.


Assuming that the FBIs statistic is the closest to being accurate as we are going to come, then that means 28,373 men are falsely accused.

Let's see...187,975 actual rapists walking free if Gabji's criteria were adopted by law enforcement, or 28,373 men whose lives are inconvenienced by a miscarriage of justice. Looks like a gimme to me.

I feel awful for the men who are falsely accused. I think there should be extremely stiff penalties handed down for women who are proven to have filed false rape allegations. Reparations to their victim, jail time, community service, public humiliation...I'm fine with that. But the idea of letting potentially 200,000 rapists walk free just because they didn't manage to injure their victim is insupportable. Gbaji needs to be deeply ashamed of himself.

____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're ***, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky *** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#83 Aug 18 2005 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
I'll respond to Ambrya in a minute...

Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I don't think I have *ever* heard of that happening.
Well, ****... that convinced me. We all know Gbaji's perceptions and experiences are what shape reality.

Again, numbers? Cites on your claim that the vast majority of date rape cases are actually post-*** regrets? I already assume you're as qualified as my lawn is to say what rapes are rare or extremely rare or whatever. So should I assume when you say something is rare, you're just making sh[i][/i]it up to suit your arguments?


Aside from Ambrya (who I'll respond to), no one else has put any numbers out there either.

However, anecdotally, since the OP was about a case of *exactly* that happening, I'd say that the fact that women *do* claim rape for a variety of reasons without a rape actually occuring. I don't have to cite numbers since we're talking about that scenario occuring. I need only point to the article in the OP.

It would seem to me that the burden is on others to show that my argument is invalid. I'm saying that our rape laws make it too easy for the situation in the OP to occur. I'm saying that this is largely due to the reclassification of "date rape", and the host of ambiguities that brings to the entire issue.


Is that wrong? I'm pretty sure that if our standard for rape was that it had to be provably forcible sexual assualt, then this case would never have gotten past a basic physical examination of the victim.

Would that leave some legitimate rape victims out in the cold? Maybe. But my argument is that we're not talking about a very large number. By Ambrya's own stats, 75% of rape victims required medical attention. We have to assume that a higher percentage had marks/bruises/etc that were sufficient to establish a rape had occured, but didn't actually require medical attention, right?


I'm simply suggesting that the scenarios being created to justify the "no evidence" rape charge are pretty darn rare, but our current rape laws go to the exception rather then the rule, and IMO end up causing more pain then they resolve. You're not going to have any greater chance of a conviction in a rape case with no evidence regardless of how "seriously" the police are required to treat it. However, you will end up with situations exactly like the OP, where someone uses a charge of rape either to get back at someone, or just to avoid an unpleasant situation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Aug 18 2005 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
It would seem to me that the burden is on others to show that my argument is invalid.
Umm... no

The onus is on you to support your arguments, not on us to accept your "facts" out of hand. When your "facts" are questioned, you don't try to turn it around by saying "prove I'm wrong!". Get some cites and numbers to support your "facts" or else admit you're making them up.

To wit:
Gbaji wrote:
What "date rape" is, is when a woman has *** with someone but says she didn't really want to. There's no way to tell if a woman had *** with the guy because she felt she had no choice at the time, or if she had it consentually and later felt bad about it and claimed he made her do it. Look at the documented cases of date rape out there. They are *not* what many people think. It's really not about women raped by people they date. It's women getting themselves into situations where they feel pressure to have *** with someone, but instead of refusing go along with it, and then after the fact feel they've been taken advantage of.


Find a credible site that supports this claim yet? 'Cause that's not what I read when I looked for info on date rape. Or did you just decide you'll redefine the term and act as if you have some credibility in doing so? 'Cause so far, your argument has been "This is what it is 'cause I said so! Prove me wrong!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85proofeleven, Posted: Aug 18 2005 at 7:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're being trolled by gbaji, thats sad
#86 Aug 18 2005 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
Or did you just decide you'll redefine the term and act as if you have some credibility in doing so? 'Cause so far, your argument has been "This is what it is 'cause I said so! Prove me wrong!"

It's identical to the way he likes to refer to 1750 definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," and call people wrong for using their modern-day meanings.



____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#87 Aug 18 2005 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
proofeleven wrote:
You're being trolled by gbaji, thats sad
I wish I was Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Aug 18 2005 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Aug 18 2005 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're ***, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky *** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#90 Aug 18 2005 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The onus is on you to support your arguments, not on us to accept your "facts" out of hand. When your "facts" are questioned, you don't try to turn it around by saying "prove I'm wrong!". Get some cites and numbers to support your "facts" or else admit you're making them up.


Huh!? I'm pointing to a case where a woman was able to make a claim of rape with no evidence other then her word. I'm stating that the changes in our rape laws that allow women to make such claims without any evidence is the reason we're seeing such things.

How do I have to "prove" this? If we didn't allow it, then the OP would never have happened. It's that simple. What is there to prove? Clearly, it's possible for a woman to charge a man with rape with out any rape have occured. I'm simply arguing that this happens because we have lowered the burden of proof in cases like that. Isn't that obvious?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Aug 18 2005 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I can only assume you're being intentionally obtuse to avoid having to make any actual cites. I quoted the portion I had been questioning all along and asked you to defend your imaginary definition of date rape.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Aug 19 2005 at 3:24 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
I could rape my girlfriend without leaving a mark. She is tineh.

I mostly just wanted to chime in and say that Gbaji is a piece of sh[b][/b]it though. That is all.



Edit: Unless of course, Gbaji proves me wrong...

Edited, Fri Aug 19 04:31:43 2005 by NaturalDisaster
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#93 Aug 19 2005 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,293 posts
Next time i lace my dates drink with triazolam i now can party all night long with a clear conscience!

Thanks Gbaji!
#94 Aug 19 2005 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
65MNK | 37WAR | 20THF | 20BST
#95 Aug 19 2005 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm making it easy for Gabji to understand what I'm questioning by adding it to my sig.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Aug 19 2005 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
Nobby wrote:
If gbaji fell over in the forest and there was nobody there, would he still type 250 paraghraphs to describe the sound?


gbaji - nice troll. Even varus couldn't convince us he's as dumb as the arguments you posted here.

Bravo.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#97 Aug 19 2005 at 2:24 PM Rating: Default
******
20,674 posts
Just thought I would mention that this is the best thread about rape ever! Even more surreal its because of Gbaji.

____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#98 Aug 19 2005 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Look guys. I'm make it really simple for you. We can argue about statistics all day long. We can also argue about the definition of date rape all day long as well.

I remember all the debates over this back in the day. You have to remember that the definitions you're looking up and finding are the redefinitions after the fact. Before then, a women raped by an acquaintance was "raped". No one made a distinction. We knew that statistically many women were raped by someone they knew, but no one tried to make a new term for it.

Date rape includes rapes commited by someone the victim knows, but they didn't stop there. They added in "rapes" in which the coersion was non-physical. When I talk about "date rape", that's specifically the portion I'm talking about. Those which match the traditional definition of rape are "rape" whether commited by someone the victim knows or not. Those more like the case Ambrya brought up (she's given a choice of having *** with him or walking home), are *not* rape in the traditional sense.

That's what changed. That's what I'm ******** about. And the legal changes that came along with the creaction of the date rape classification are largely what is responsible for false claims like the one in the OP. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? If you change your laws to allow for less evidence to be required for a charge of rape, you're obviously going to get some women who'll realize that they can claim rape and have a better chance of ******** over some poor guys life.


So maybe my definition of date rape doesn't match the textbook definition. But that's because I'm only including the deltas. What was "added" to the rape classification to make it "date rape". Since the simplistic "raped while on a date" fell under the catagory of rape before they came up with the date rape classification, that's *not* what I'm talking about. That's not what *changed* in the law with regards to date rape. What changed was that non-physical forms of coersion were considered "force" for the purposes of rape. The result is cases like that of the OP, and people like Abrya today coming up with a scenario like the woman in the woods and comfortably calling that rape.


Again. I don't buy those changes. They're bogus. The really sad thing is that they don't even help women or the cause of women's equality either. They hurt them. The inherent assumption in Ambrya's scenario is that the women had no choice because the woman is just a weak female who can't figure out how to manage to get home without a man to take care of her. Clearly, she's reliant for him to "save her" from the mean evil nightime. She clearly can't find a phone, or walk a couple miles on her own, so we must charge the man with a crime because she'd rather submit to *** then have to do things that any normal sane person would have no problem doing.

Yeah. Score one for women's rights on that one...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Aug 19 2005 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Look guys. I'm make it really simple for you. We can argue about statistics all day long. We can also argue about the definition of date rape all day long as well.
Is this your way of admitting there's no way in **** you'll find a credible source to agree with your asinine notions of what rape is?
Quote:
So maybe my definition of date rape doesn't match the textbook definition.
Or that of any sane person. Just admit that you're full of misogynistic sh[/i]it. It's not as if anyone will be suprised.
Quote:
But that's because I'm only including the deltas.
Oh, of course. Your definitions don't match because yours are the advanced version, not the plebian version of date rape the rest of us commoners use Smiley: rolleyes
Quote:
What was "added" to the rape classification to make it "date rape". Since the simplistic "raped while on a date" fell under the catagory of rape before they came up with the date rape classification, that's *not* what I'm talking about. That's not what *changed* in the law with regards to date rape
There are (almost) no laws specific to date rape. There's just rape laws. None that I know of anyway; feel free to prove me wrong with cites. My own searches only turned up the phrase "date rape" in conjunction with "date rape drug" and laws against their use*. I'd be tempted to say there are NO laws specific to date rape vs. 'traditional' rape except one source said "Most jurisdictions, however, make no legal distinction between date rape and rape that is committed by strangers." That would imply someone out there does, even if the laws are rare enough that I can't find them. On the other hand, at least one other legal site says "Date rape is a [i]nonlegal
term for forcible sexual activity between people who know one another during a social engagement." (Emphasis mine) In short, your ***** that "date rape laws" have changed things is either based on your imagination and/or complete crap.

"Date rape" is a term used by groups to focus on a particular subset of rape: that by people you know as opposed to random violence. Namely to remind females that rape isn't just something that happens in dark alleys. You'll note that said groups don't claim date rape is a woman having *** and then regretting it later.

*As well as some BBC story from '02 which I've no idea how it turned out and was about a potential law, not existing US law

Edited, Fri Aug 19 21:39:51 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Aug 19 2005 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,160 posts
Is it ok, Pat, is it bad if little girls cry while being raped?

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#101 Aug 19 2005 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
I've got to support your points Jophiel.

I do, however, think I get what gbaji is driving at.

Basically he doesn't like the words we're using.

He wants different deffinitions for the words. This is basically the same reasoning that lead to the creation of PC and the term Date Rape in the first place I'll wager.

This tactic is fairly weak minded.

Imagine a biiiiig circle. This big circle is Rape. This circle has many circles inside it. They are labeled:
Forced - Physically holding the victim in place
Under Duress - Psychological/situational stress
By Aquaintance
By Stranger
Violent - Physical/Physiological stress, punishment by application for non-compliance.

These are not mutually exclusive, except Stranger/Aquaintance. Well I guess afterwords you know the person, in a particular sense... but thats more there than here. Also every one of the inner circles must actually be a part of the Aquaintance or Stranger circle. I'm sure most of you in a Stats or Math Modeling class have seen the graph I'm talking about. Even a Discreat Math course. Someone could probably whip it up in a program real quick. Of course we can't use the stats from before except loosely. They didn't give us a quite complete picture... which gbaji tried to capitalize on earlier.

I think what you want to do is remove the "Under Duress" outside of the circle and into a "Bad Sexual Descision" circle... except for the parts where it intersects with Violent or Forced as those would fit your definition of "Rape".

I think that what you fail to address though is the most critical element of most rape cases. Consent. Consent must be given and if it comes down to a case where it must be implied... you're fuc[u][/u]ked.

If you're with your wife, you both get wasted, go home, and have *** you're okay if she wanted to. But if she never said "yes" or otherwise gave verbal consent... then even she, your loving wife, could have a case. ***** could: does.

This is the problem I have with current Rape law. I'd discuss it with anyone who has the time or the compunction.

If none of that is what you're thinking gbaji then I guess you're a moron.

Again, Cheers.


(OMG I AM T3H SP3LLING N00000BLAR!)
____________________________
65MNK | 37WAR | 20THF | 20BST
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 95 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (95)